Rush Changing the Narrative

There are many on the right who are very unhappy, to say the least, about Rush Limbaugh issuing an apology for calling Sandra Fluke a slut. They shouldn’t be. The anger should be directed at him using the word in the place. Above and beyond how derogatory the word is towards women, it changed the conversation; and not in a good way.

I understand what Rush was trying to do. He was pointing out the irony of her claim. But the truth is we know nothing about this woman’s sex life. If you are thinking to yourself that you do, then when is the last time she performed a sexual act? How many partners has she had in the past six months? Is she heterosexual or homosexual? Chances are you know none of the answers to these questions because she never discussed her sex life and what type of birth control (if any) that she uses. She discusses the topic in a more generic conversation and talked about countless “others” who tell her their stories of woe.

What Rush and everyone else needs to be concentrating on is the first amendment. The government trying to dictate to a church what is and what isn’t protected by the constitution, not her sex life. Seriously, are you all that interested in her sex life? I am not. I could care less what she does in her bedroom. As long as it done by consenting adults, it is none of my concern. What is my concern is how she is trying to push her will and her view-point onto the Catholic Church and Georgetown University. She chose that school for a reason. She went there specifically to try to force them to change their policy on birth control. She did this before Obamacare and the mandates were even an issue. She has been working on this for almost three years.

Look, birth control isn’t the issue. I have used birth control in my life and I can guarantee you no one will be accusing me of being a slut. Newsflash; not all conservative women are virgins when the get married and therefore use birth control. Newsflash;, not all conservative women are looking to have large families; so they use birth control. The issue is does the federal government have the right to force a religious institution to go against the doctrines and teachings of the church that has been around for thousands of years? These church teachings have been in existence long before the U.S. was ever formed.

The left set the trap and we conservatives walked right into it. This isn’t about sex, it isn’t about birth control, it is about liberty. We need to do ourselves a favor and stop talking about this woman’s sex life and deal with the fact that she is trying to push her will onto the rest of the country; regardless of the constitutional protections that are in place. We need to stop playing their game. They wanted to paint conservatives as a bunch of people who think anyone who uses birth control is some sort of sexual deviant who needs us to tell them how to live their lives and what drugs they can and cannot put into their bodies. That is a battle we cannot, should not and will not win. Americans don’t want the right telling them how to live their lives anymore than they want left doing it. What Americans want is their freedoms and liberties to be protected. Our job is to tell them that they are being ebbed away by an over-reaching, ever more powerful federal government in the guise of discussion on birth control. If we keep the discussion on birth control and Ms. Fluke’s sex life they don’t see that they are giving away their liberties willingly in exchange for a $9 pack of generic birth control pills.

Advertisements

Related

Actually, if I’m angry at Rush for anything (and I’m not), it would be his being too stupid to leave the leftist trap alone. Instead of seeing what they were doing, he just charged in like an idiot and did what too many others are happy to do–and the left is in pure ecstasy about–talk about birth control, sex, and abortion.

We were winning this battle on the Constitution, on the free exercise of religion, on the huge problem with government dictating to religious organizations, mandating that they go against their conscience.

Let that sink in. We were winning that battle. Handily.

Enter all the crazies talking about birth control, then the set up with Fluke, then Rush leaping into the trap. Now where are we? Where is religious freedom? Losing. Big.

This is not, never was, and never will be about contraception–let’s stop playing into the left’s hands. The issue is freedom. Period. No ifs, no ands, and damn sure, no butts.

Visitor from ObamaLand here, hope you don’t mind! I think Fuzi’s point was right, that the whole issue was a set-up–it just seems too perfectly timed with Santorum’s rise in the polls. Obama is definitely not above wedge-issue politics, hopey changey stuff notwithstanding.

But, I want to press you, Fuzi, on one point. Is it really true that you’re not angry at the attitude Rush put on display? All the stuff about aspirins between the knees, I mean, that’s so unbelievably demeaning to a whole group of women at a religious institution. I’m not talking about the language or the words, but the sentiment. And then the idea that men should be compensated with sex videos? I mean, what sick mind would think of that in the first place, let alone believe that was funny, hilarious, absurd, ridiculous, or anything else but just sick? Isn’t it horribly offensive, no matter your stance on the policy question?

I can’t speak for Fuzzi, but that is part of Rush’s shtick. The videos was about the notion that somehow she has a right to birth control. If I and every other tax payer now must pay for birth control then we should be getting something out of it. And yes, all of us will be paying for birth control whether we use or not, whether we agree with it or not. There is no such thing as birth control fairies that will be giving that out for free; regardless of President Obama says. The people who listen to him on a regular basis don’t look at it as demeaning. We just don’t. We think it is demeaning that we are being asked to pay for it.

Thanks for letting my comment through moderation. And thanks, JACG, for your thoughtful reply! I realize it wasn’t fair of me to ask Fuzi (or you) to set aside the policy question, given its importance to you as a constitutional issue. In any case, I appreciate the time you’ve taken to answer my question. Great blog!

You welcome back anytime since you seem to be willing to engage in real debate minus the name calling and rhetoric. You should now no longer go into moderation. Keep it civil and you won’t be deleted. We welcome all points of view.

Sorry, DemocratGuy, I only just saw this notification when your second one came through.

Anyway, to address your delightfully civil comments/questions: heck, no, I’m not angry at Rush’s attitude or what he said. I’m a conservative. If I got upset every time some leftist “comedian,” pundit, talk show host, politician, or random troll called a woman a name (“slut” is actually one of the nicer terms I’ve heard from leftists), my head would have exploded in self-righteous indignation ages ago.

I’m not in the least upset that a conservative stooped to that level, at least not beyond the obvious fact that it was beneath him (and as JACG points out, he’s a shock jock, it’s what he does—isn’t that Bill Maher’s excuse for calling Sarah Palin a “cunt” and David Letterman making jokes about Bristol Palin’s sex life?).

Are you honestly upset that Limbaugh “demeaned” a “whole group of women” or are you upset that a CONSERVATIVE used the same tactics and language that leftists use against women on a daily basis? Something to think about. Now I don’t know you, and you seem nice enough, so maybe you do get outraged at all of the horrible things that are said about conservative women (the rape fantasies and death wishes are always fun). Maybe you do . . . . or maybe that’s “different”? Somehow.

I think that one thing that might bridge the ideological gap is the following consideration of my conservative principles. Name calling is not nice, it’s rude, it’s ill-mannered. It’s not, however, anything more than that (which is why conservatives always graciously accept the (forced) apologies when they are made, which is all-too-rarely).

If he thinks she’s a slut, so what? Is that really an indictment of everyone with a vagina? Of course not, but I used to be a leftist, so I get the whole group think thing and know that’s both an extension of the collectivist craziness that is the entire Marxist miindset and the knee-jerk reaction to any conservative daring to have a viewpoint. Tolerance, really, isn’t a strong suit on the left. Nor is forgiveness. But I guess that’s why it’s so hard for you to understand that I’m not in the least bit upset that Rush called Fluke a slut. It’s still a (relatively) free country.

You’ll notice that I’m not talking about contraception because that is not what this is about (never was, never will be).

Hi there, Fuzi! Since you asked, for the record, yes, I do get very annoyed and upset when conservative women are attacked this way, and I was thinking of the vicious, vile insults hurled at Sarah Palin by the likes of snide jerks like Bill Maher. I was also thinking about how frustrating it was to hear so few on “my side” speak out against such slime. In fact, I specifically clicked over to Potluck just to see how you folks dealt with a similar situation.

Thanks to you, too, for the reply. Always great to get your perspective on things, and I appreciate you taking the time to listen to me natter on. –Mike

I think you need to wake up. Why are we talking about this women’s sex life instead of religious liberties then? We talk about her sex life it allows the left to cover up what they are trying to do. They then win.

I struggle still, because Fluke 1) lied before Congress 2) knew she was lying and 3) if she was lying about something as basic as her age to make herself more sympathetic, what else was she possibly lying about?

Yes there are people who need birth control for medical reasons, not social ones, just as there are men who need viagra for reasons other than pure pleasure. But you’re right, Rush derailed the dialogue with the distraction and as a result, she’s been elevated to the point that the media and left and even now the cowed right, won’t vet her testimony.

We cannot know if any of the sob stories she told were true. She used her platform to pour out a story that demands people violate thier faith so she can act as she will, be it slutty or chaste. And now with Rush, many more people heard her testimony, and she has become a martyr for the left. She may not be what Rush called her, but she is something else, though perhaps only in such small things as one’s age by seven years, untruthful.

Did she lie about her age or did the media assume that she was 23? I don’t think she said her age. The media ran with it. I agree she lied, but I don’t think it was about her age. I will have to listen again to find out. What she lied about was the costs of birth control in the DC area. I live here I know that birth control is dispensed like Pez here.

She didn’t lie about her age. In her testimony she said she was a third year law student, but never told her age. She also said that she was an activist and named the organization she was ahead of. here is the link. Much of the media coverage of her testimony is not correct. Wow, what a shock that is. http://current.com/1mhv4kc